【作者】 杨婷；

【导师】 叶金强；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 民商法学， 2018， 硕士

【摘要】 在传统理论中,代物清偿乃实践合同,若债务人未按约提出替代给付,则合同不成立。但实践中,出现争议最多的便是当事人仅存在合意而债权人未实际受领的情形,若按照传统理论衡量,有可能损害债权人利益,学界便将此合意作他种解释。学说的定性不一影响了司法实务,法院判决结果也呈现纷繁复杂的样态。本文从以物抵债现象出发,对代物清偿展开详述,明晰代物清偿的诺成性以及其与近似制度的区分以更好地解决司法实践中出现的争议。第一部分以案例梳理的方式提出问题,指出学界或司法实务对以物抵债的误读以及法院对代物清偿合同性质认定不一的问题,明确厘清代物清偿内涵的必要性。第二部分对代物清偿内涵进行阐释,通过比较法的视角了解代物清偿制度原貌,分析将代物清偿视为要物合同的不合理性,提出代物清偿是当事人合意用替代给付来清偿债务,债权人现实受领可使原债消灭的合同,债务人现实提出替代给付不再是合同的成立要件。第三部分论述如何判断代物清偿合意内容,代物清偿与债的更改(债的变更)或新债清偿皆是以替代给付清偿原债,因而须明确三者的构成要件与法效果的区别,以便当事人可作出不同交易安排,同时论证肯定代物清偿的诺成性仍有教义学上区分之实益;在当事人意思表示不明时,对他种给付代原定给付的规范性解释须作类型化讨论,只有在他种给付为移转物权或类似情形(如移转股权)时,才能认定当事人的合意为代物清偿。第四部分论述代物清偿合同履行遇有障碍时,债权人享有两种救济径路之选择权,既可根据代物清偿合同要求债务人履行新债,也可退回原债之关系要求债务人继续为原定给付。第五部分结合典型司法案例,分析了以物抵债与代物清偿的关系。笔者认为,当事人在清偿期届满前达成的以物抵债的约定为附条件的代物清偿合同,若未约定清算义务,应准用流担保条款认定协议无效;若当事人缔结的以物抵债协议仅为清偿债务而无担保目的,则代物清偿只为以物抵债的一种类型。更多还原

【Abstract】 In traditional theory,datio in solutum is recognized as a real contract,which means the contract will not be established if the debtor doesn’t bring out a different prestation.However,the dispute of paties happens when the debtor doesn’t bring out a different prestation in juridical practice.If we observe the traditional theory,the creditor’s interest will be encroached.In the academic filed,the scholar explains datio in solutum in a different way.The different nature of the doctrine affects the judicial practice,and the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case occurs frequently.Starting from the phenomenon of retribution in judicial practice,this paper makes use of the method of case analysis and comparative study to expound the settlement of substitute property in detail,make clear the nature and effect of datio in solutum,clarify the distinction between it and the similar system in order to better solve the disputes in judicial practice.In the first part,the author points out that the misinterpretation of expiation of debts in kind in academic circles or judicial practice and the courts’ determination of the nature of datio in solutum aren’t same.The necessity of defining the connotation of datio in solutum and the significance of analyzing its consensual basis and liquidation effect are clearly defined.The second part explains the connotation of datio in solutum,through the perspective of comparative law to understand the original appearance of datio in solutum system,and analyzes the irrationality of datio in solutum as a real contract.It is put forward that datio in solutum is the satisfaction of the parties to replace the original payment with another kind of payment,and the creditor can actually receive a a different prestation which can make the original debt disappear,and the debtor actually proposes the other kind of prestation is the performance of the contract in force,instead of establishment of the contract.The third part discusses how to judge the agreed content of datio in solutum,because datio in solutum,the novation and the new debt are similar in the content of the different prestation instead of the original one.First of all,it is necessary to make clear the difference between the constituent elements and the legal effect of the three,so that the parties may make different transaction arrangements.And at the same time,demonstrating that there is still a doctrinal distinction.In cases where the party’s intention is not clear,the normative interpretation of the other kind of prestation replaces the original prestation to be typed and discussed.Only when the other kind of prestation is transferring real right or similar situation(such as transferring of equity),can the parties agree to the contract of datio in solutum.The fourth part discusses that when there is an obstacle to the performance of the contract,the creditor has the option of two kinds of relief paths,which can require the debtor to perform the new debt according to the contract of datio in solutum.The relationship between refundable debts also requires the debtor to continue to pay the original payment.The fifth part combines the typical judicial cases in practice to analyze the relationship between expiation of debts in kind and datio in solutum.The author thinks that the contract of expiation of debts in kind made by the parties before the expiration of the period of performance of the debt is subject to the agreement of datio in solutum.If the liquidation obligation is not agreed upon,the current security clause shall be applied to determine that the agreement is invalid;if the agreement concluded by the parties is only for the purpose of paying off the debt and not for the purpose of security,datio in solutum is only one of the types of expiation of debts in kind.更多还原